What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

When applied to the average gamer out in the wild... I wouldn't be surprised if this was a fair assessment.

I don't disagree, and I also don't think it's a good thing. I mean, in analogy, I guess it's fine if you want to just play backyard basketball, but learning a few plays and theory of the game will make your basketball better. Well, maybe, I was always terrible at basketball. Baseball, too. Soccer, though... I was pretty good at that, and analysis was a big part of getting better.

 

[Lanefan]

You mean with you issuing a blanket dismissal? I thought that's not what was happening in this thread? I get it's a hard pill to swallow -- you've got a lot of inertia here, and it's challenging to redirect. I had the same issue. But, ultimately, what counts as "dissociative" isn't really a baked in feature of the mechanic, but rather whether or not it fits into the paradigm we already have. Viewing hitpoints as dissociative is a hard ask, especially if you've spent a lot of time with a specific (to you) explanation of them.

Viewing hit points as dissociative is fairly easy, if that's what one wants to do.

It's also every bit as easy to view them as having a connection to the fiction and causing/requiring fictional changes (at least in terms of description) as they are lost, if that's what one wants to do.

And this is perhaps the underlying root of the argument about what hit points represent. The hit-points-as-plot-armour side views them more dissociatively, the hit-points-as-meat side views tham as having a basis in the fiction.

Or - as many do - one can see them as kind of a combination of both the above: to some extent plot armour, to some extent meat; and the dividing line on where one becomes the other varies for everyone.

But, they are dissociative -- they're utterly disconnected from anything in the fiction and do not require any fictional changes until and unless you're out of them. I mean, there's huge numbers of threads arguing what hitpoints actually are, so I fail to see how you can state that they are dissociative (if they weren't, there'd be many fewer arguments about what losing 10 hitpoints means in the fiction).

 

[Lanefan]

Where did I say it was bad? I said it was different. The "bad" part is being afraid of gotchas (and running them), because gotchas are an abuse of the GM's authority in the game to hide information and then punish players with the hidden information. It's icky.

It's only an abuse of the GM's authority if she doesn't give out information the PCs should reasonably have access to. However, note this does NOT include foreshadowing every hidden hazard the PCs are about to face: it's on the PCs to assume there's potentially danger at every turn and to approach things in that frame of mind.

It's not an abuse in the slightest if the PCs neglect their due diligence and-or throw caution to the wind.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's only an abuse of the GM's authority if she doesn't give out information the PCs should reasonably have access to. However, note this does NOT include foreshadowing every hidden hazard the PCs are about to face: it's on the PCs to assume there's potentially danger at every turn and to approach things in that frame of mind.

It's not an abuse in the slightest if the PCs neglect their due diligence and-or throw caution to the wind.

Yes, I'm aware of all of this. Assume that when I'm saying it's bad, it's with this knowledge in mind.

 

[Imaro]

I don't disagree, and I also don't think it's a good thing. I mean, in analogy, I guess it's fine if you want to just play backyard basketball, but learning a few plays and theory of the game will make your basketball better. Well, maybe, I was always terrible at basketball. Baseball, too. Soccer, though... I was pretty good at that, and analysis was a big part of getting better.

Wait... in the context of ttrpg's how are you defining getting better. I think for many nowadays rpg's for most are like a poker night or boardgame night as opposed to a field of study or job they are trying to get better at... but I might not be fully grasping the usage here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wait... in the context of ttrpg's how are you defining getting better. I think for many nowadays rpg's for most are like a poker night or boardgame night as opposed to a field of study or job they are trying to get better at... but I might not be fully grasping the usage here.

I don't treat it as a field of study, but I want to get better at it. I mean, I paint minis, too,and while I could have stopped at the travesty of Ultramarines (they were blue), I also practiced, critiqued, and sought better techniques to do what I wanted. You know, better. Does my better equal your better? Absolutely not, but there's value in investigating new ideas and approaches, if only to say you won't/can't do that.

 

[Campbell]

I think there's a lot of value in the pursuit of mastery, even in your hobbies. Particularly in group hobbies. Developing new skills and getting better at existing skills is fun for me personally. In a shared hobby where we are all expected to contribute I think giving it your all is something you owe the other people you play with. Even from a completely selfish standpoint when you give it your all it's often contagious. You raise the bar and in doing so everyone starts to bring it more.

I believe in trying hard in everything you do. Professionally, personally, and in leisure activities. Obviously we all need to recover and we should make sure we properly prioritize things in our lives, but why not try to do our best rather than just good enough?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I believe in trying hard in everything you do. Professionally, personally, and in leisure activities. Obviously we all need to recover and we should make sure we properly prioritize things in our lives, but why not try to do our best rather than just good enough?

1) people have very different definitions of ‘best’ in RPGs

2) lots of people, probably most, engage in leisure activities to unwind and kick back. If you have a table of four chill people and you are trying to amp up the energy and get them to ‘bring their A game’ you are totally misreading the room (and probably reducing their enjoyment of the past time)

 

[hawkeyefan]

I can say with confidence that my games have improved since joining these boards and engaging in discussion here. My enjoyment of the hobby, and by extension the enjoyment of those I play with, has been enhanced.

I attribute this to posting here and listening to people, especially people with ideas and experiences different than my own. To reading the games people were talking about and actually playing some of them to try and fully understand those games and the viewpoints of those posters.

I want to continue improving and learning. I would pretty much assume that of just about anyone here.

Otherwise, what’s the point?

 

[Imaro]

I don't treat it as a field of study, but I want to get better at it. I mean, I paint minis, too,and while I could have stopped at the travesty of Ultramarines (they were blue), I also practiced, critiqued, and sought better techniques to do what I wanted. You know, better. Does my better equal your better? Absolutely not, but there's value in investigating new ideas and approaches, if only to say you won't/can't do that.

Eh I play games to have fun with my friends and family... if thats happening I'm not to worried about getting better.

Edit I guess I could ask them to study other games and playstyles so that our fun might get "better" but the group probably wouldn't be interested in this type of homework to facilitate better fun.